These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

274 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9737493)

  • 41. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
    Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
    Newton DP
    Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability.
    Green SM; Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):149-152.e4. PubMed ID: 20947204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal.
    Duff K; O'Bryant SE; Westervelt HJ; Sweet JJ; Reynolds CR; van Gorp WG; Tranel D; McCaffrey RJ
    Arch Clin Neuropsychol; 2009 May; 24(3):201-7. PubMed ID: 19640873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
    List A
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Taking a peek into the editor's office.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2018 Oct; 20(10):1101. PubMed ID: 30258125
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
    Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
    Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Bad peer reviewers.
    Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
    Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. [Underrepresentation of women among peer reviewers and textbook authors in medicine in Germany].
    Zuber MA
    Med Klin (Munich); 2001 Mar; 96(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 11315403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
    Landkroon AP; Euser AM; Veeken H; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
    Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 17012462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
    Thombs BD; Levis AW; Razykov I; Syamchandra A; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Jan; 78(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 25300537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].
    García AM; Plasència A; Fernández E
    Gac Sanit; 2002; 16(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 12057181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers.
    Day FC; Schriger DL; Todd C; Wears RL
    Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):329-33. PubMed ID: 12192359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].
    Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
    Lijec Vjesn; 2005; 127(5-6):107-11. PubMed ID: 16281469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.